HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031859.tiff "--N Weld County Pi,—ino D—irtmeY
SARAH E . TROSTER UFFICF
MAY 1 9 2003
nITCEIVED
May 15, 2003
Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
RE: Case Number P2-594
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am an adjoining landowner to the proposed subdivision. I recently purchased my lot in
the Challenger Ranch subdivision based in large part upon my understanding that large scale
or more dense development would not occur, either in the Challenger Ranch or on the
adjoining Forbes property.
In my view, this proposed development is a substantial departure from other
development in the area and would negatively impact my property value.
I have many additional problems and concerns with the specifics of this proposal and
therefore would simply state that I am opposed to this proposal.
Should you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Lede s„.....t--
Sarah E.Troster
2003-1859
P.O. BOX 669 • INDIAN HILLS, COLORADO • 80454 EXPISIT
I _5
BLACK STONE MINERALS COMPANY, I tN�ld County
1001 FANNIN,SUITE 2020,HOUSTON,TEXAS 77002 Planning Department
^, 713-658-0647 FAX713-658-0943 GREELEY OFFICE
r�
JUN 0 1 2003 c
May 29, 2003 RECEIVED
Lakota Lakes Ranch, LLC
Att: Debra Eberl
7288 County Road 54
Johnstown, CO 80534
Re: Zoning Request
Higley Farm Annexation
NW/4 & N/2 SW/4 Sec. 29-5N-67W
Weld County, CO
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Black Stone Minerals Company, L.P. ("BSMC") acknowledges receipt of your letter dated May
5, 2003 giving notice of a zoning request that Lakota Lakes Development has applied for which
affects a portion of the captioned property.
As a mineral interest owner in this property who is interested in protecting its rights, BSMC is
opposed to this zoning request being granted unless and until a formal surface use agreement
has been entered into with K. P. Kauffmann Company, Inc., who currently operates an oil well
located on this property and holds the rights to explore and further develop the mineral estate.
Very truly yours,
Black Stone Minerals Company, L.P.
e M. Pereski, CPL
nd Manager
cc: Weld County Planning Committee
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Gordon Allott (via fax#303-825-4825)
K.P. Kauffman Company, Inc.
1675 Broadway, Suite 2800
Denver, CO 80202-4690
T:\77TLakota LakesRanchLtrJ P052903.doc
JUL-01-2003 TUE 10: 12 AM K P KAUFFMAN FAX NO. 303 825 4825 P. 02
K. P. KAUFFMAN COMPANY, INC.
WORLD TRADE CENTER
VIA FACSIMILE: )6rs BROADWAY, 28mi FLODR
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-4628
970-304-6498 — July 1, 2003
TELEPMONC(303) 825-4822
Sheri Lockman FACSIMILE (303)625-4828
-
Planner www.kpwcom -- -
Weld County Planning and Zoning
1555 North 17 Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80634
RE: ICPK—Challenger 61-32
IJNDRILLED LOCATION NW/4 OF SEC. 29 T5N-R67W, 6711 PM
Lakota Lakes Ranch, LLC
NWNW of Section 29 Township 5 North—Range 67 West, 6th PM
Weld County, State of Colorado
Dear Sheri:
Please be advised that K. P. Kauffman Company, Inc. (KPK) has an existing oil
and gas lease and production on the subject property. As of the date of this letter, KPK
does not have a Surface Use Agreement between KPK and Lakota Lakes, LLC.
KPK will require a said Surface Use Agreement before the property is submitted
to Final Plat. KPK and Lakota Lakes, LLC are in the process of discussing a Surface Use
Agreement. After briefly reviewing the plat, KPK has only a few concerns, but not
limited to the following:
1. Property lines within 150 ft radius of the existing A. Challenger #1-32
Wellhead located in the NWNW of Section 29 T5N-R67W, 6th PM
2. Adequate easements for all Bowlines and pipelines
3. Agreement of the undrilled location in accordance with the Colorado Oil and
Gas Conservation Commission.
4. Maintaining access roads to and from all existing and future wellheads, tanks,
separators and other leasehold fixtures.
Should you have any questions please contact me at any time. Thank you for
your attention to this matter.
Si ly,
•
. KAL F MAN Y, INC.
J n1). Lilley, RLP
and Manager
cc: Mr. Gordon L. Allott, Jr.
Attoney-at-Law
JUN-03-03 10:57 FROM-JOHNSON AN11r1000IN PC 3036744455 re T-241 P 02/13 F-265
JOHNSON AND AUCOIN , P . C .
COi7NSELORS AND ATTORNEYS AT LAW
mavRR OnFI•FS
PATRICK W.IOHNSON' 2942 EVERGREEN PARKWAY,sutra 20a ENERGY CENTRE,suns 2960
GEORGE C.AUCOIN,n<.n EVERGREEN,COLORADO 80439 1100 POYDRAS STREET
CHRISTINA C.ROESKE• TELEPHONE: p03)674-4414 NEW ORLEANS,LOUISIANA 70163
DONALD L.HYATT,E API.C' FACSIMILE:(303)674-4455 TELEPHONE:(504)582-2166
FACSIMILE:(504)582-2422
nAdmitted in Louisiana only
•Admiucd in Colorado only WEESITIL wwa,joiwscnand►aeoia.eem
soOf Counsel in Louisiana - .._ _
May, 19 2003
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Case Number. PZ 594
�..� Dear Planner:
Please be advised that this firm represents Albert S. Challenger, the adjoining landowner with respect to
the above-referenced Change of Zone application. Following a review of the application, our client
requested that we address certain inaccuracies and issues which are presented.
As you are aware, my client has recently successfully subdivided his adjoining land. The centerpiece of
that application was a conservation easement, preserving a substantial percentage of the total acreage for
wildlife and scenic preservation.
The current application is fundamentally in contradiction to my client's subdivision, and as such
devalues my client's property and those of the surrounding area.
For perspective I direct you to the photographs in my client's application depicting the property prior to
development. You should note that the property is prime agricultural land utilized for growing corn and
alfalfa. To date, the Forbes have,without reason, destroyed a large portion of the growing crops,
including some on my client's property.
I would also like to note that the transactions involving the Forbes and the applicants appear to involve
less than an arms length transaction between unrelated parties. It is my client's understanding that they
are longtime friends who have cooperated in the bringing of the application, though giving the
impression that the applicants are uninformed buyers, new to the property.
JUN-03-03 10.57 FROM-JOHNSON ANp..i.UC0IN PC 3036744455 n T-241 P.03/13 F-265
Unfortunately my client and the Forbes have had a difficult working relationship since Mr. Challenger
sold them the property. This has lead to some misinformation and a level of distrust between them.
Despite this, my client wishes to be clear that he does not oppose development of the site, but rather
objects to the proposal which is so dramatically inconsistent with the surrounding area.
I have enclosed my client's detailed response with this letter for your review.
Very truly yours,
JOHNSON AND AUCOIN,P.C.
atrick . Jo son
Enclosures
•
r
JUN-03-03 10:57 FROM-JOHNSON AN0.AMC0IN PC 3036744455 ^ T-241 P.04/13 F-265
P-. May 15, 2003
Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Case Number: P2 594
To Whom it May Concern:
I wish to protest the proposed resubdivision presented by Forbes Park
Ranch, L.L.C. and Lakota Lakes, L.L.C.
(AA) This most current proposal ignores,defies, or violates all the recommendations,
concerns and requirements outlined in previous subdivision and proposed subdivision
attempts.
I have directed my comments to four areas;
I. Letter of Introduction to Adjoining Neighbors from Developers;
II. Change of Zone Cover Letter Application and Proposal to Weld County;
III. Review of Lakota Lakes Ranch—PUD—COZ;
IV. Interaction with Forbes Park Ranch—Damages and Threats.
L Letter of Introduction to Adioinine Neighbors
I. I believe the March 3,2003 letter of introduction to the neighbors is intentionally
misleii+i"g.
I(A) "We have purchased property. . .." What was purchased, what was
disclosed,and the current status of S.E. 843. Forbes sold parts of the property knowing
that this sale was not allowed until rezoning was approved.
"Presently SE. 843 financing only per Forbes'Sketch Plan dated February
1, 2001. His facilitator and purchasers were aware of this restriction.
I(B) "Our plan is to proceed with the planned unit development that the Forbes
had initiated . . .." The original plan was rejected by the County. Forbes then proceeded
to use administrative procedures to create three lots: Lot A, 5.9642-Ac;Lot B 79.7745
Ac; Lot B was then divided into two parts by S.E. 843. These administrative procedures,
which exclude input from neighbors, also protect the neighbors by precluding further
divisions within ten years.
From the beginning,the Forbes intended to go for a 5+ lot subdivision as
witnessed by the submittal of their 2001 Sketch Plan(after their first attempt to subdivide
/',
JUN-03-03 10:58 FROM-JOHNSON ANIJAC0IN PC 3036744455 ^ T-241 P.05/13 F-265
was denied by Weld County). The Forbes used the administrative process to preclude
input from their adjoining neighbors and placed their first house,vehicles and animal
holding corral directly adjacent to their neighbor's critical and sensitive areas. Now
(having preventing their neighbors from protecting themselves during the first stages of
their planned development). They are attempting to continue the subdivision and ignore
the limitations that they had agreed to in their previous actions.
Both the buyers and sellers are corporations and are experienced developers.
"Milt Forbes joined his father's construction company, "Forbes Development Co." in
1960. Their facilitator(Realtor) is a family friend to both a very experienced broker.
The circumstances surrounding this sale were secretive and crafted to allow the parties to
plead hardship.
I(C) . . . to make this our home." Both Milt Forbes and Muckier told me that
they intended to divide this property into three lots, for themselves and for two other
family units. The County has allowed this parcel to be divided into three lots. Each
family(L.L.C.)has then proceeded to try to create five, six, seven or eight lots. The
Forbes have been trying to sell their "home" for the last year and the Muckler's do not
want to purchase the Forbes' "home". The home that neither party seemed to want is now
in my front yard,jammed between oil tavlcs and proposed cul-de-sacs and is to be
enclosed by a dirt road. This tome would be greatly damaged by the proposed
subdivision and this problem would then become the neighbor's problem.
I(D) "Our attitudes and those of prospective buyers are cooperative and
supportive of the agricultural operations in the surrounding areas." Unless the Owners
already have seven buyers,this statement is misleading. Proposing to allow 96 horses
and seven, 3,000 square foot barns is not compatible with any in this area. There is a
professionally-operated cattle farm north of the purchaser's property. This farm is
appropriate and allows hundreds of other acres to remain productive and under-
developed. To suggest that the existence of a farmer's corrals should allow neighbors to
de-nude and over-graze their small residential lots demonstrates a lack of respect for the
Right-to-Farm policy of Weld County.
I(E) "Our aim is to enhance the land and to contribute to the community." Not
true. The land has not been enhanced by the Forbes;the proposed plan will devalue the
neighborhood. The community has made many recommendations for regional parks,
trails, good roads and protected wetlands. All have been ignored in the proposed
development.
I(F) "Plan includes seven, 3 acre home sites . . . includes Scott Forbes'existing
home." If the Forbes'home is included, then why didn't they sign the request for the
change of zone? What adjustments will be made if the change of zone is not successful?
I(G) "Open space will be maintained for the common use." Not true. There
were 60 acres available for open space and regional parks. The original Sketch Plan
specified(total open space 59 acres) "for the residents of the subdivision". The change of
2
JUN-03-03 10:58 FROM-JOHNSON ANp.4UCOIN PC 3036744455 T-241 P.06/13 F-265
zone specifies (total open space 25 acres) the developer has already defined common use
to his advantage.
I(H) "The existing road access will remain the same." Not true. The single
access has now become a double access. The length of the access road has more than
doubled. The road now surrounds many lots and goes through a gravel mining operation
which has not been completed and for which no final reclamation plan has been
approved.
H. Chance of Zone Cover Letter Application and Proposal
II(A) 'Nearly 60 acres being passive open space". The original Change of Zone
a
Application signed on March 20, 2003 specifies "proposed (in acres) open space 25
acres". The original Sketch Plan application specified "open ace within the PUD 59
acres,more or less". It seems that the acreage has remained lie same but the definition of
open space has been modified to exclude residence,neighbo and citizens of the
community from using the natural areas which now exist alo g the river.
II(B) The description of the property purchased is mplete or incorrect.
S.W. ''A is not the same as N 1/2 of the S.W. '''A.
II(C) "To pick up where the Forbes left off'. Not .
a) Proposed lots have increased from to 7+lots.
b) Minimum lot size has decreased from 3.3 acres to 2.5 acres.
c) Open space has Men from 59 acres t 25 acres.
d) All of the comments, recommendatio and cautions from
concerned agencies have been ignor .
Also, it is not possible to pick up where the Forbes left off After the original
attempt to subdivide was rejected by the County,the developer used other methods to
create a three lot subdivision. Land divisions, agreements,and construction has occurred
since the original submittal. The proceedings cannot start where they left off and real and
potential damage has been done to adjoining property owners.
II(D) "We envision a well-planned pasture/lake land and home for our families."
a) What happened to the river?
b) The lakes are part of a future gravel pit reclamation plan and this
plan has not been submitted or approved.
c) "Home for our families"how many families are going to live in
this home and what about the (well planned) home in my front
yard that no one wanted? (I am sure that for these proceedings the
current temporary occupant will pro less to be delighted with
having 70 cars a day circle his home on a gravel road).
3
JUN-03-03 10:58 FROM-JOHNSON ANp.dJJCOIN PC 3036744455 � T-241 P.07/13 F-265
II(E) "Having the utilities in place . . .." I believe that more water taps and more
fire hydrants will be needed for the proposed expanded PUD.
III. Review of Lakota Lakes Ranch—PUD—COZ
General concepts of the development:
a) "Five are new lots and two exist". Lot 7 is not new and Lot
A is now being re-subdivided into Lots 1 and part of Lot 2.
b) "Nearly 60 acres being passive Open space . . ." Very
misleading statement(see I(G)and II(A).
c) "The open space . . - area to enjoy fishing, picnicking and
hiking activities." Not true. See above.
d) "No buildings will be expected". This statement avoids the
issue of buildings in the pasture.
III(B) Open Spaces. The use,protection and ownership of open space has been
avoided and corrupted throughout this proposal. See I(G), 11(A), III(C)(1).
III(C) Nnm}rrs and Types of Use.
" . . in response to division of wildlife concerns for wildlife."
Intentionally misleading and avoids DOW concerns that four to six mules and horses
were being contained on the river bottom and were potentially destructive. DOW also
expressed concerns for the wetlands in the south east comer of the proposed subdivision.
Developers placed a home in this area and proposed to bring!a 70 vehicle trip per day
gravel road into this area.
"The covenants%r the subdivision will accommodate these concerns."
"Livestock use will be determined as covenants are prepared."
"Four animal units per lot(Lots 1 through 7)and Lot(D);four animal
units per acre."
"Accessory buildings not to exceed 3,000 square feet per lot."
III(C)(3) Livestock Use. Ninety-six horses and seven barns is compatible
with nothing in this area. The developer has proposed to deal with these issues after
change of zone and through the covenants and Homeowners Association—both of which
he controls.
Ill(C)(4) Storage Buildings. Seven 3,000 squire foot barns is excessive.
Four horses and a 3,000 square foot barn could be approp a on a 20 acre horse property
but this seems excessive in a concentrated, residential subd' ' ion. Excessive horses
4
JUN-03-03 10.58 FROM-JOHNSON AN0•s4C0IN PC 3036744455 rs. T-241 P.08/13 F-265
would also foul and impact the proposed open spaces and the homeowners in adjoining
down-wind neighborhoods.
III(C)(5) "Maximum Building Hecht—40 feet". I thought 35 feet was the
normal maximum allowed?
III(D) Water Source. Is it true that more water taps and more fire hydrants have
been purchased before the re-subdivision is approved. This demonstrates that this is an
expansion of a previously envisioned subdivision.
III(E) Sewer Systems. "A variance from urban standards". What kind of system
is being used for the existing Forbes'home? Is this the same as is proposed for other
homes? Are these systems impacted by high concentrations of livestock?
III(F) Vehicular Systems.
1) "A variance . . . is proposed". The proposed road system does not
meet or even attempt to meet any of the standards of Weld County. The design has the
maximum negative impact upon the residents, environment and wildlife in this
neighborhood and the adjoining neighborhoods.
2) Please note! In previous submittals from these Developers they
promised that "roadways—internal streets will be designed and built to meet County
standards".
3) In previous submittals, Developers were asked to meet with
Owners of lots in adjoining PUD's to improve roads and to address concerns voiced by
the Fire Department, Sheriffs Office and the Department of Transportation. The Owners
of the new proposed subdivision have ignored these requests.
III(C) Storm Water.
1) "Studies(to be) completed with the . . . final plat submittals". The
County has previously required that these studies be completed prior to a change of zone
hearing.
III(H) Soils Information. "The soils are not considered prime for agricultural
use". These home sites have been prime crop land for corn and alfalfa for over 100 years.
111(1) Natural Features.
1) "The site contains the Big Thompson River and its attendant flood
plain". The Town of Johnstown and the Division of Wildlife and the Planning
Department of Weld County have requested that regional parks,trails that special care
and preservation be exercised in those natural areas. The Developers have not addressed
/-•
S
JUN-03-03 10:59 FROM-JOHNSON ANP.A.0C0IN PC 3036744455 ,^ T-241 P.09/13 F-265
these concerns and have used and proposed using this area to maintain a large horse
operation.
M(J) Commerciallvfiinerals.
1) The on-going mineral extraction operation does include parts of
proposed Lots 1 and 2.
2) No mention is made of the existing oil storage tank batteries. The
setbacks from these tanks to existing homes and proposed roads is not herein displayed.
111(K) Flood Plain Issues.
1) Previous County requirements that an updated flood plain study
was to be submitted prior to change of zone hearings.
III(L) Landscape Plan. "A detailed landscape plan will be prepared for the re-
zone submission",
1) This is the re-zone submission! And there is no final reclamation
plan for the gravel pit—the gravel pit is the proposed open space.
2) "Lakota Lakes,L.L.C. will seek guidance from the Division of
Wildlife to create enhancement guidelines for fisheries and water fowl habitats.
Misleading. The DOW has expressed concern for river bottom habitat and wetlands—the
Developers have ignored and have gone contrary to their advice. The concerns they
profess to have will be dealt with and paid for by others in the future as part of the
negotiations between the Bureau of Mine Land Reclamation and the gravel pit operator.
III(M) Impacts.
1) "Environme val issues such as noise and air quality are not
significant". Not true! Almost anyone would agree that 96 horses, dusty roads, animal
odors and the destruction of adjoining natural habitats is negative impact.
2) "Preservation and restoration of the natural environment will have
the opportunity to be improved as a result of the adjacent subdivision". True! Challenger
Ranch will continue to enhance the area, but they will do nothing but the opposite, by
destroying natural habitat.
3) "Public services are not adversely impacted by this development".
Not true. The Sheriffs Department, the Fire Department and the Transportation
Department have stated just the opposite.
4) "The design makes the most of developable property,preserves
r^ natural amenities and protects private investments". Not true. The design is acceptable
6
JUN-03-03 10:59 FROM-JOHNSON ANp4UICOIN PC 3036744455 r. T-241 P.10/13 F-265
to no one in the area and the Developers have admitted that neighbors have refused to
sign any documents that would seem to condone this subdivision.
5) The continued reference to the"livestock confinement use"to the
north does give everyone an insight into how these Developers envision the future look of
their proposed subdivision.
III(N) Services Plan. This submittal has completely ignored all the negative
comments provided by service providers.
III(O) Comprehensive Plan and Code Compliance. The proposed subdivision:
a) Has destroyed and does not preserve agricultural land.
b) Does not comply with paving and sewer requirements.
c) Does not meet urban facility requirements required when new
subdivisions adjoin existing subdivisions.
d) Does not promote protection of agricultural natural resources.
e) Does not meet the requirements for public safety.
f) Livestock and 4-H uses are not well served by 2 '/z acre
subdivision home sites.
g) Oil exploration activities (two more wells drilled) will impact the
small lot owners.
h) The need for additional oil storage tanks has not been addressed.
III(P) Specific Development Guide (Component One -- Environmental Impacts).
1) "The adjacent minerals have been mined and the site is in the
process of reclamation". Is this true? Do we have a letter from the Bureau of Mine Land
Reclamation to substantiate these statements?
2) "Traffic inputs, 70 vehicles per day".
3) "Division of Wildlife concerns". Most of these concerns are not
addressed.
4) "Flood plain analysis has been accomplished". Who did it for this
property and where is it? Did the presence of mining activities impact the results?
5) "The proposed subdivision is designed to be compatible with the
adjacent Challenger Ranch Development and Wildlife Sanctuary". Not true. "The open
space further buffers any human activity from the river". Not true. The 68 horses to be
contained on the 17 acre river bottom pasture will destroy the area and impact several
neighbors.
7
JUN-03-03 10:50 FROM-JOHNSON ANpJlICOIN PC 3036744455 ^ T-241 P.11/13 F-265
"Generally, hiking, fishing and wildlife observation will occur in the nearly 60
open space acres". This statement is contradictive to the above promise that the open
space buffers any human activity from the river.
111(Q) Component Two—Service Provisions.
1) "No unusual comments were received". Not true.
2) Reduced law enforcement services will be available and a notice to
this effect must be posted at the subdivision entrances.
3) Fire protection is compromised.
7) "A variance for streets is requested".
a) Large lots did not generate the need for this variance.
b) The design does not minimize the impacts to the natural
drainage.
c) Oil and gas vehicles have not necessitated a longer road.
d) The developer proposed to avoid the cost of quality roads.
Maintenance will be the burden of future homeowners.
e) "There is no connecting value to the street for public use".
Not true! Who determined tit long dusty gravel roads can
better serve the community than short paved County
maintained roads.
111(R)
1) Component Three—Landscaping. None?
III(S) Component Four— Site Design.
1) "Johnstown expressed a concern for open spaces and trails along
the river". Greeley rejected the Developer's plan. The Developer's response is not to
conform to the expressed concerns.
2) "Lakota Lakes,L.L.C. will own and control the common area as
equestrian use and recreation use". This means that the river will not be buffered from
human use and that the Homeowner's Association will not own the river bottom. The
City and County will not be able to incorporate these areas into a future regional park or
trail system.
III(T) Component Five—Common Open Space Usaae. "Will be operated and
maintained by a Homeowner's Association and Lokota Lakes, LLC. See above.
r
8
JUN-03-03 10:59 FROM-JOHNSON ANp-&ICOIN PC 3036744455 , T-241 P.12/13 F-265
IV. Interaction with Forbes Park Ranch—Damages and Threats
In the beginning,there was the potential and expectation that the neighbors would
work together to form complementing joined subdivisions. The following is a
chronological summary of events which has damaged the spirit of cooperation.
a) Mr. Milt Forbes told me Mr. Challenger that he intends to divide the land
into thee units: one for himself and one for each of his two sons.
b) Mr. Forbes (who was at this time aware of his serious medical condition)
applies for a five lot subdivision. This is done prior to the final approval of the
Challenger Ranch PUD. The Sketch Plan is disapproved.
c) The Forbes through administrative processes (which did not invite or
allow neighborhood comment) seem to have gained permission for a three lot
subdivision. Lot A, Lot B, and a petitioning of Lot B(S.E. 843).
d) The Forbes hire Colson Excavation to build a road to the proposed Scott
Forbes'home site.
e) Through some miscommunication(of which I had no part)the road is built
through 600 feet of the Challenger Ranch. The mature alfalfa crops on Lots 5 and part of
.-� Lot 4 are completely scraped off and destroyed and the irrigation systems are destroyed.
The error is detected by someone,the road is removed and the lots are abandoned—soon
to become weed-infested, ugly and non-productive.
f) The Forbes do not apologi7 or explain and they make no effort to
compensate for the damage or to replace the loss.
g) Mr. Forbes builds his home and(per our Utility Cost Sharing Agreement)
appears to bring utilities to our common property line.
h) Mr. Scott Forbes demands early payment and excessive interest for
bringing utilities to the property line(he later acknowledges his error in writing).
i) The dates and nature of pertinent correspondence is delineated below:
1) January 22, 2001. Bill for water hook-up received.
2) July 9, 2001. . . . I acknowledge receipt of bill. "Trench still
open". I request invokes showing cost breakdown and a
verification that these are final bills.
3) July 23,2001. I receive a bill for road work and Milt Forbes
offers to provide copies of road work and utility drawings which
he states Scott Forbes is preparing.
9
JUN-03-03 11 :00 FROM-JOHNSON AEI-4401N PC 3036744455 1-241 P.13/13 F-265
4) August 3, 2001. I mail check for my share of road work
($11,250.00) and request above-mentioned final bills and
drawings.
5) August 9, 2001. Scott Forbes informs me that "you do not need
layouts".
6) September 2001. Scott Forbes borrows my road grader and clears
an area on our property line as if to lay out a horse corral.
7) October 22, 2001. Scott Forbes writes me a demand letter for an
advance of$25,000.00.
8) November 2, 2001. I offer to meet with Mr. Forbes at any time
convenient to him to resolve our differences.
9) November 13, 2001. Mr. Scott Forbes sends a letter "I am wrong
about interest owed".
10) December 6,2001. Mr. Forbes, through his attorney, states that he
has completed all of the requirements of our Cost Sharing
Agreement and therefore these are the final bills that he demands
to be paid.
11) After several discussions between the attorneys for both parties, it
was acknowledged that these bills were not due until Mr.
Challenger pulled a building permit for a home on his property.
The critical view and impact area for Lots 3, 4, and 5 of Challenger Ranch is the
common property line separating these lots from Forbes Park Ranch.
r
It is this sensitive area which Mr. Forbes has chosen to build his corrals in,build
his home and driveways in, and store his campers, trailers and construction equipment in.
From the intensity of his development in this critical area,I do not know if his actions
represent threats or are done from a lack of consideration for neighbors or the
environment. These boundary areas contain the wetlands, lakes and river bottom
habitats. In the original negotiations between Forbes and myself, the intent was to create
a 100 foot buffer zone on each side of the common boundary.
In the beginning,Mr. Forbes spoke of a three lot subdivision. My belief was that
a well-designed subdivision with three large lots would compliment the area and I would
be amenable to our roads connecting. To protect myself from a high density subdivision,
which Mr. Forbes or a later developer might propose,I specifically withheld access
through my property to Mr. Forbes'property. This was fully understood by Mr. Forbes,
and the brokers for Forbes and myself and our attorneys. The convoluted gravel road
proposed by the Developers is testimony to this agreement and represents the Developers
attempt to create a more intense subdivision without cooperating with the neighbors.
Albert S. Challenger
10
/ DE
June 24, 2003
Weld County
Planning and Zoning
Greeley, Co 80631
To Whom It May Concern:
Concerning the lot for Eli Krebs on WCR 54, the district will not require any
special needs for the transportation department. A bus will be able to stop on the county
road. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at 587-6053.
Sincerely,
15.E
Bill Hungenberg
Assistant Superintendent of Schools
Hello